I've seen in more than one place that the upcoming 12-60mm lens can do .54x closeups. B&H clearly states .27x in the specs, but some sites are crop-factoring that to .54x in their chat. Since I haven't heard of anyone claiming their 1:1 macros are shooting 2:1, and mentally I dare believe that all sensors receive the same data from the lens but can only capture their assigned portion - cropping of macro percentages is wrong!
er -Right?

It may be wrong in a technical sense, but certainly a 1:1 on m4/3 and a 1:1 on FF are not the same sized object at all. If you shot a macro subject on a 1:1 Macro lens on a FF camera, and wished to recreate that scene exactly, you would only need 1:2 on m4/3. So it makes sense in that regard.

I think the problem is that representing magnification as a percentage of the sensor is a bit misleading anyway. Who cares what percentage of the sensor it is? I want to know how small the details I can focus on are and how small of an object I can fill the frame with.

What many people are actually after is how small a subject will fill the frame, it's just that everybody is used to 35mm terms. It's exactly the same as a focal length that's quoted in 35mm equivalent. What it really means is 'a subject will look the same size on the frame with this lens on m4/3 as an x magnification lens on 35mm'.

It may be wrong in a technical sense, but certainly a 1:1 on m4/3 and a 1:1 on FF are not the same sized object at all.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree - but a 1:1 macro shot will be 36mm wide on 24x36 sensor, 24mm wide on 18x24 and so on. The image will still be showing that portion of the image that matches the sensor size, and no crop factor interferes with that fact.

I definitely agree - but a 1:1 macro shot will be 36mm wide on 24x36 sensor, 24mm wide on 18x24 and so on. The image will still be showing that portion of the image that matches the sensor size, and no crop factor interferes with that fact.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that means that 1:1 vs 1:1 is about as relevant as 50mm vs 50mm when the sensor sizes are different. A 50mm lens on m4/3 is still a 50mm lens, but it shows a much smaller portion of the frame than 50mm does on FF. So comparing the two and calling them both 50mm lenses can be a bit confusing. That's why we typically come up with "equivalents".

Sensor sizes are not specified in dimensions which means 1:1 as a ratio of frame size means very little, especially when comparing multiple sensor sizes as we do today.

I know what you are saying, but I don't blame marketing for trying to make things more even or point out advantages where they exist.

This is an interesting topic, given the fact that I don't do a lot of macro work. But just like how focal lengths for m43 lenses are listed as the actual focal length (in this case, 12-60mm rather than 24-120mm), why would the magnification caused by the lens not be doubled as well?

Again, I have no clue because I just don't do a lot of macro work, but it is an interesting discussion. Also, be sure to factor equivalence terms like "DoF", "Total Light", and what not in to your answers (OK, I'm kidding about that last part...)

A magnification ratio has absolutely nothing to do with sensor or film size. A 1:1 image will be exactly the same same size on any format. It's a measurement. Just like an inch is an inch no matter what size object you're measuring. How much of the sensor it takes up is a different matter.

This might sound silly, but magnification ratio is only important if it's actually important. By that I mean if it the final reproduction size is important.

If you shoot a bug at 1:1 on 4/3 and then present an 8x10 enlargement the final reproduction ratio is around 20:1. Is that your intent? If it's digital, what is the resolution of the monitor it's on? Do you even know the ratio any more at this point.

The important things to know when choosing magnification is how big is your subject and how big is your sensor.

I think the most useful way, but also the most complicated way, is thinking of it in terms of pixel density. Magnification as an absolute value would be perfect if all sensors had the same density of photosites, so in that sense a crop off a 135-format sensor with a given lens would be exactly the same as a full-sized capture with the same lens on an M4/3 sensor. Unfortunately, that's not the case!

With a 16MP M4/3 sensor, you really are getting more useful information out of your macro lens when used at max magnification. It's not "true magnification," but you're getting 16MP of resolution from the same area that you'd get 6MP of information from using a standard 24MP FF sensor. Obviously, if you are using a Canon 5DSR, you can negate that to a much more real extent - you're getting 12.5MP of resolution from the same crop at the same max magnification, which is pretty close to a 16MP M4/3 sensor.

So ultimately, as in all camera comparisons, there is no simple answer, and you really need to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Your M4/3 camera will be way more useful for high-quality macro in basically every way than your Nikon D700, but when compared to a D810, 5DSR, or A7r, the balance is a lot trickier.

It also really depends on your requirements for magnification in the first place! If you don't need to shoot something that is 1:1 sized or smaller on a M4/3 sensor (i.e. smaller than 17x13mm), then the additional magnification you're getting from it is not useful, and in that case you'll be able to actually take advantage of the resolution from a larger sensor rather than merely cropping, as you would otherwise have to do to end up with the same final image.

With a macro diopter on my Panasonic 100-300mm at 300mm, I can achieve almost 2x true magnification with my M4/3 cameras. To get the same pixel density filling the frame with your insect on a full-frame camera, you would need an extremely specialized lens like a Canon MPE-65 that cannot focus to infinity (it is 1-5x magnification only).

{}

But with great magnification comes great challenges! This was shot at f/14 (well into diffraction territory) and still needed somewhere between 3 and 5 images (I've forgotten now) to focus stack it because the depth of field is so tiny. Maybe only 1mm per frame, if that, at f/14!

Links in this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.